What are the implications of the recent Tesco equal pay ruling?
All of the ‘big four’ supermarkets have seen equal pay claims submitted. The majority of these cases involve workers arguing that they have not been paid equally compared to distribution centres of the business.
All of the ‘big four’ supermarkets, as well as other retailers, have seen equal pay claims submitted in the Employment Tribunal in recent years. The majority of these cases involve workers, or former workers, who work in the supermarket stores (with a higher proportion of women), arguing that they have not been paid equally compared to colleagues in the distribution centres of the business, where there is usually a higher proportion of men. Their argument is that they carry out work of equal value to these colleagues and that, as a result, their pay should be equal.
In the latest of a string of decisions involving these claims, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has determined that former Tesco workers can rely upon the ‘single source’ test in respect of their claims of equal pay. The ‘single source’ test comes from EU law and allows for workers to compare their roles to those of colleagues in a different location for the purposes of an equal pay claim if their terms and conditions of employment come from a ‘single source’. This is a single body which is responsible for the inequality and is in a position to rectify it.
As this is a test under EU law, Tesco tried to argue that it should not be applied directly to businesses within the UK. However, the CJEU has now determined that the ‘single source’ test does apply to UK businesses. The CJEU was of the view that the EU law clearly imposes an obligation to achieve equality of pay for equal work and work of equal value by eliminating discrimination on the grounds of sex from all aspects of remuneration. Therefore, where one body is responsible for terms and conditions relating to pay, its workers can compare themselves regardless of where they work.
This does not necessarily determine that there will be a single source in every employer which faces claims – the decision of the CJEU simply states that the workers are able to use this as an argument against businesses in the UK. This will therefore depend on the particular organisation in question. However, unfortunately for Tesco, their workers have established that there is one ‘single source’ for the purposes of their claims. They are therefore able to compare their work despite working in different locations. It is worth adding that this judgment will be binding on Employment Tribunals in the UK moving forwards, as the question was asked of the CJEU before the UK formally left the EU.
The CJEU decision follows on the back of a decision of the Supreme Court in March this year in which it was determined that ASDA shop workers and depot workers were on common terms and therefore could be compared with one another. The key question is whether the depot workers would be employed on the same, or substantially the same, terms if they were employed at the retail workers’ establishment.
With both the ASDA and the Tesco cases, these ‘wins’ are only a small step for the claimants trying to win their claims for equal pay. They still need to be able to show that they performed work of equal value and it is likely that the supermarkets will try to defend the claims on the basis that the difference in pay was as a result of another factor which was not discriminatory such as skill sets, demands and unsociable working hours. Some of these equal pay claims could take years to resolve.
Having said that, the combination of the CJEU and Supreme Court judgments make it clear that employers will need to look more carefully when seeking to ensure that its employees are paid equally regardless of their sex, especially where the employer has multiple parts to its business; it is expected that all retailers will be watching the outcome of the remainder of this litigation with particular interest.
This article was first published by People Management
Contact

James Tait
Partner
james.tait@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3999
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
A pandemic legacy: flexibility
Legal Update
Pitfalls for retailers to avoid when offering access to ‘buy now, pay later’ products
Opinion
NHS pay deal – is this the end of the dispute?
Opinion
Gender pay gap reporting – what are my obligations?
Opinion
Employment claims: the new rates and limits from 6 April 2023
Opinion
Plans to amend NHS pension rules to bolster NHS workforce approved by government
Opinion
Increase to 20 hour limit on supplementary employment for Health and Care Worker visa holders
Article
New report highlights risk of sidelining ED&I in school trusts
Opinion
Mopping up after a leak – how businesses can take steps to protect their confidential information
Online Event
Wellbeing and financial considerations – practical solutions for challenging times
Press Release
Browne Jacobson collaborates with The GLAA and University of Nottingham to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s Manchester dealmakers advise Spatial Global on its acquisition of Heathrow based freight specialist Hollyport Logistics
Legal Update
Teacher strikes – lessons learnt so far
Opinion
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Opinion
Consultation launched on minimum ambulance service levels during strike action
Opinion - Maternity services
Changes to redundancy protections for employees post-maternity leave
Opinion
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Legal Update
Employee who refused to wear a face mask fairly dismissed
Opinion
New toolkit to support safer recruitment in the care sector
On-Demand
Employment update webinar
Opinion
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
Opinion
Fire and re-hire – draft statutory code
Opinion
Menopause and the workplace
Opinion
Supreme court rules on retail tenant's service charge bill
Opinion
Consultation on holiday entitlement – part-year and irregular workers
Opinion
Government introduces new “anti-striking laws” to be discussed in Parliament
Opinion
Twitter facing employment claims following mass redundancies
News that Twitter is being threatened with multiple claims by UK employees following mass redundancies provides a reminder of the risks that comes with an employer implementing large scale redundancy exercises.Legal Update
Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels
Legal Update
Discrimination comes of age
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Looking ahead to 2023 – what Health and Care employers need to know
Published Article
Consumer duty part 3 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
Opinion
Rising Employment Tribunal backlog
Legal Update
Official statistics demonstrate a new wave of age discrimination claims
Opinion
Menopause and the NHS workforce addressing the female brain drain…
Opinion
4-day working week a success?
The Covid-19 pandemic drastically changed the world’s way of working, with increased flexibility being greatly desired by employees. Earlier on in the year, a number of organisations trialled the concept of a 4-day working week – which has clearly been a success for many.Legal Update
Coming of age
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
Published Article
Starling Bank employment tribunal
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
Published Article
EU banks show slow progress on gender diversity
On-Demand
The UK's green agenda - the outcomes of COP27 and actions since COP26
Opinion
Rising wages ahead
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.